The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, January 18, 2019

A good performance by the Euroskeptics would be a nightmare scenario for the EU.

Elections will be held May 23 - May 26 among the 27 countries of the European Union to select 705 members to the European Parliament. These elections happen every five years, and 2019 is one of those years.

The number of countries represented in this parliament was 28, but with Great Britain leaving it will now be 27.

In the past, these elections were humdrum affairs. After all, who could you vote for, Tweedledee or Tweedledum? But not this time. A lot has happened in Europe to change the political environment, and this election could have profound effect on the European Union itself. As the German newspaper Der Spiegel says:

Right-wing populists have become a feature in the political landscape of almost every European member state, while in Italy, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Denmark, and Finland, they are either part of the government or support the government. They are no longer merely a fringe phenomenon or a passing anomaly. Rather, they are a movement that could continue to grow -- and they are doing all they can to position themselves as such.

It's not accurate to call these parties right-wing. Some are, some aren't. They're a diverse group. What they are, however, is Euroskeptics who are united in their anger towards the cosmopolitan elite, the liberal opinion leaders in the media, and overbearing bureaucrats in Brussels. Not surprisingly, the two greatest villains in their eyes are German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron.Euroskeptics loath Macron for his call for deeper European integration which they equate with further loss of their freedom. They chaff from directives pushed on them from Brussels like political correctness, smoking bans, homosexual marriages, costly environmental regulations, and most of all, immigration from the Third World into their countries.

Euroskeptics hope to transform the upcoming European elections into a kind of plebiscite: What kind of Europe do people want? Should the EU be a political union with a corresponding dilution of national sovereignty or should it merely be a free-trade bloc where each individual country can chart its own course?

According to Der Spiegel, polls show the Euroskeptics capturing 20 percent of the vote in the May elections. Although this would not be a majority, it could be enough to throw a monkey wrench into the workings of Brussels. When Nigel Farage was a member of the European Parliament, he would harangue his fellow members on the dangers inherent in the EU. His rants went nowhere, as he was a lone voice crying out. But imagine how effective such a message would resonate when one-fifth of the Parliament is in agreement.

A good performance by the Euroskeptics would be a nightmare scenario for the EU. It could stop further integration in Europe and actually turn back the clock. Marine Le Pen of France says, "Wild globalization is coming to an end." These are important elections. Keep your eye on them.

Peter SkurkissSource: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/01/the_upcoming_european_elections.html Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Freshman House members and others demand Pelosi return to the negotiating table with the president.

Some Democrat lawmakers are losing their will to fight on in the
ongoing stalemate with President Trump over border wall funding that has
partially shuttered the federal government since before Christmas.

The GOP-controlled House of Representatives voted 217 to 185 on Dec.
20 for a spending bill with $5.7 billion for the wall. The measure
floundered in the Senate and the partial shutdown began Dec. 22. The
Senate remains in Republican hands but the House is now controlled by
Democrats.

The president’s negotiations with Democrats over the $5 billion needed
to begin construction of the border wall have gone nowhere largely
because of Democrat intransigence –leadership in the House refuses even
to meet with the president at the White House—and the federal government
continues to be partially shut down for lack of appropriated funds.
Although pressure on Trump has been growing, the president has vowed to
keep the shutdown going as long as it takes to secure funding for the
wall.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who barely won the House speakership
after an internal party revolt, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
(D-N.Y.), vow to prevent Trump from securing any funding for a wall
along the nation’s multi-state border with Mexico.

Pelosi’s lieutenant, House Majority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.),
said Democrats are solid in their opposition to negotiating with the
president on the wall. “We are totally united — totally,” Hoyer
reportedly said.

But that claim of unity is nonsense, according to Matthew Boyle of Breitbart News.

“In fact, many Democrats–particularly the newly elected freshmen–want
to negotiate with Trump on the wall, and they are saying so publicly
while expressing their disdain for Pelosi and her fellow leaders,” Boyle
writes.

Freshman Rep. Jared Golden (D-Me.), is urging his party’s leaders to
negotiate with Trump and the Republicans. Democrat leaders and Trump
need “to stop hiding and show a little leadership” to bring the
longest-lasting federal government shutdown in the nation’s history to
an end, he said.

Freshman Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said “there’s a number of us on
the Democratic side who are quite concerned that we’re not working on
negotiated positions and taking the bull by the horns and trying to
think about what it would look like.”

Freshman Rep. Max Rose (D-N.Y.) told local media he was “sick and
tired” of government shutdowns being used “as a form of brinksmanship—a
tool of negotiation.”

“All we’ve done in the House is repass the Senate bill,” he said. “Now
that will allow us some freedom, some space, some real debate. The
Senate though has to show their independence. I just got out of a
bruising fight with my House leadership … Let’s open the government back
up and let’s get back to work.”

“I’ve been meeting with several representatives from across the
country, both Democrats and Republicans,” Brindisi said. “And I’ve been
trying to force leadership on both sides of the aisle to work out a
compromise to this shutdown.”

“If you listen to all the experts, they’ll say some elements of
physical barriers where it makes sense are in order,” he said. “We need
more border agents, we need more technology at our border crossings and
ports of entries so trucks and shipping containers are inspected before
coming into our country.”

“If I am getting comments and contact from my constituents expressing
concern that the Democrats are not prioritizing security, then I think
we can do better,” she said.

Freshman Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas), said he would consider supporting appropriations needed to build the wall.

“I’m not going to rule anything out, I really am not,” he said.

Freshman Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), said she is optimistic a deal can be brokered.

“I hope that we can all come to a compromise because that’s the way
things get done,” she said. “If we don’t compromise, the American people
are the ones who get hurt. Right now, they are hanging in the balance.”

Freshman Rep. Jeff Van Drew (D-N.J.) said he would vote for wall funding.

“If I had the opportunity to vote for some sort of a deal, I would,”
he said. “I think if we work on the border security, in my opinion, the
president would be willing to work on some of these other issues.”

“I think we all want to see DACA protections, so I think there’s an
opportunity to, if they give something — it’s called negotiation,
right?” Bera said. “Give us a chance to protect the Dreamers; maybe we
can give something on border security.”

Some in the House Democrat leadership are also diverging from Pelosi’s position.

Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) said some kind of border barrier is necessary.

“If we have a partial wall, if we have fencing, if we have technology
used to keep our border safe, all of that is fine,” Bustos, who chairs
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said on CNN last
week.

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), vice chairman of the House Democrat
conference, said on MSNBC that a barrier of some kind would work in
parts of the U.S.-Mexico border. “You know, I think there are parts of
the border that would benefit from repairing fencing and other
barricades that already exist there,” she said.

For his part, President Trump has said he is willing to fulfill his
signature campaign promise by declaring a national emergency under
federal law so the government can finally move forward with building a
desperately needed wall on the nation’s porous southern boundary with
Mexico.

Legal experts say the president has the authority to declare an
emergency and invoke a federal statute called the National Emergencies
Act that President Gerald Ford signed into law on Sept. 14, 1976.

President Trump has already invoked the National Emergencies Act three
times in his tenure, according to ABC News. President Barack Obama invoked the statute no fewer than 10 times.

A
large number of ‘refugees’ who live in the 'West Bank' and Gaza
strip are citizens of the ‘Palestinian Authority’ or ‘State of
Palestine’ and at the same time claim to be ‘refugees from Palestine’.

Excecutive summary: UNRWA’s claim that their
hereditary refugee status for Palestinians is not unique is simply
untrue. There is no parallel and no precedent, even in protracted
conflict situations, for the manner in which UNRWA transfers the
“registered refugee” status, automatically, through the generations,
while refusing to take any actions that would end this status. While
UNHCR provides certain services on a case-by-case basis to the children
of refugees, it does not make refugee status hereditary. This is one of
many differences in UNRWA’s treatment of its population from the general
practices used by UNHCR. All these differences are designed by UNRWA to
maximize the population counted as “Palestine Refugees” and perpetuate
their status.

For almost 70 years, the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency (UNRWA) has created a unique category of “registered
refugee” status - one that is automatically passed down to one’s
descendants. Under UNRWA’s rules, the children and grandchildren of a
Palestine refugee, and all their descendants thereof, are automatically
considered ‘refugees from Palestine’. Amid ongoing criticism of UNRWA’s
role in purposefully perpetuating the Palestinian “refugee” problem, the
agency has attempted to obfuscate its policy.

UNRWA has claimed
that its hereditary refugee practice is not unique, and is also
practiced by the main international refugee agency, UNHCR. This
background paper aims to clarify this issue.

There are two
separate UN agencies in charge of aiding refugees: the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Relief and
Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA). UNRWA was established in December
1949 and UNHCR in December 1950. UNHCR is responsible for all refugees
except those from Mandatory Palestine, who fall with UNRWA’s exclusive
jurisdiction.

The UNHCR determines refugee status based on
criteria from international law, in particular, the Refugee Convention
from 1951, which defines a refugee as “A person who owing to a
well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or,
owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of
that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the
country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is
unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

In
certain cases, UNHCR gives refugee services - but not status - to the
immediate family of a refugee but it does so in a manner that
significantly differs from UNRWA’s policy:It
is not automatic - it is based on a case-by-case review of whether the
actual situation merits it. When it does, UNHCR gives certain services
to the children of refugees. UNHCR does not automatically add the
children and grandchildren of refugees to the count of refugees and does
not automatically define them as refugees. Even if a child of refugees
is given refugee services, the grandchild will not be eligible for
status or services. UNRWA, on the other hand, automatically grants such
children refugee status, resulting in exponential growth of refugee
numbers.

UNHCR does not define as refugees people who acquired
new citizenship. The Refugee Convention of 1951 has a cessation clause,
which clearly says that a person ceases to be a refugee if he acquires a
new citizenship. UNRWA acts differently: More than 2 million ‘Palestine
Refugees’ hold Jordanian citizenship, most of whom have been born in
Jordan and have lived there their entire lives and are still called
‘refugees’. In addition, based on recent official census, probably 2/3
to ¾ of the 1 million refugees registered by UNRWA in Lebanon and Syria
have left those countries over the decades, with many acquiring
citizenships of western countries. Yet, UNRWA refuses to check their
situation and take them off its registration rolls. UNHCR tracks
individual refugees and takes them off its rolls as soon as they have
acquired a status, such as third country citizenship, that ends their
refugee status. This is another reason UNRWA’s numbers never decline.

UNHCR
does not define as ‘refugees’ people who are internally displaced, that
is, who have moved within the same territory. “Palestine refugees”
living in the 'West Bank' or Gaza Strip were in fact internally
displaced since they have never crossed the internationally recognized
border of Mandatory Palestine. UNRWA considers these people as refugees,
and their children and grandchildren, and all their descendants, as
well.

UNHCR makes efforts to ensure refugees are resettled or
locally integrated where they are staying, thereby ending their refugee
status. UNHCR does not exclusively promote repatriation as sole
solution, as UNRWA does, but also rehabilitation in country of refuge or
in third countries.

Repatriation, rehabilitation and resettlement
are considered equally legitimate means of ending a refugee status.
They are promoted based on expediency – that is which could achieve the
goal of ending the refugee status most quickly. UNRWA refuses to promote
local rehabilitation and resettlement, and actually makes no effort to
end the individual refugee status of the Palestinians, arguing that
“it’s not in its mandate”. It actually is. This is the main reason that
UNRWA’s numbers grow exponentially whereas the numbers of refugees in
other, shorter duration, protracted refugee situations, decline over
time.

UNHCR’s longest significant number of recorded refugees is
from Afghanistan - from the early 1980s. UNHCR does not have in its
records refugees that have been defined as such for 70 years. UNRWA
does. Such persistence of refugee status has no parallel.

UNRWA
reports of 5.5 million refugees. These are the descendants of roughly
700,000 registered Palestine refugees from the war of 1948. These
numbers include more than 2 million ‘refugees’ who hold Jordanian
citizenship. They also include a larger number of ‘refugees’ who live in
the 'West Bank' and Gaza strip: They are citizens of the ‘Palestinian
Authority’ or ‘State of Palestine’ and at the same time claim to be
‘refugees from Palestine’.

According to the rules applied by UNHCR, these people are not refugees.

UNRWA’s
claim that their policy is identical to UNHCR’s is a lie and shows that
they are not a neutral humanitarian organization but rather a political
actor aimed at perpetuating the palestinian refugee problem.

Kohelet Policy Forum is an Israeli nonprofit think tank founded in January 2012 by Professor Moshe Koppel, who now serves as the Forum’s chairman, together with several Israeli academics such as Avraham Diskin, Avi Bell, Emmanuel Navon and Yitzhak Klein, public figures, intellectuals and activists. Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23307 Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

378 petitions were filed to marry 10-year-old girls and younger.

Naila Amin was only thirteen years old when she was
married off to her Pakistani first cousin twice her age who beat and
raped her. “He dragged me about twenty feet - the whole length of the
house - by my hair,” she relates. “He began kicking me in the head and
it was so hard I saw stars.”

She described how, “My mother would watch my husband and my father kick me together in the head.”

While Nalia is the youngest of the “child brides” in the Senate report,
“How the U.S. Immigration System Encourages Child Marriages”, the young
abused American citizen is one of thousands of young girls who are
either trafficked into this country or who are used to bring their older
“husbands” to America.

Between 2007 and 2017, there were
8,686 petitions for spousal or fiancé visas for or on behalf of minors.
And during that same period, 4,749 minors on spousal or fiancé visas got
green cards. Even while the United States was claiming to fight sex
trafficking in underage girls, our own immigration system was rewarding
and promoting the sexual trafficking of girls as young as thirteen.

While the Senate report reveals that is the leading child marriage
trafficking country, with 3,297 spousal visa petitions filed and 3,123
approved is Mexico, most of the countries in the top 10 list are Muslim.

580 petitions were filed and 554 approved from Nalia's Pakistan.
Another 541 filed and 509 approved from Jordan, 277 filed and 233
approved from Yemen, and 227 filed and 207 approved from Iraq.

Mexico once again tops the list of fiancé petitions with 444 filed and
338 approved, but Pakistan is once again in second place with 237 filed
and 189 approved. Yemen accounts for 97 filed and 51 approved, Iraq had
94 filed and 72 approved, Jordan had 78 filed and 63 approved, Lebanon
had 69 filed and 49 approved, Syria had 67 filed and 50 approved, and
Afghanistan had 66 filed and 49 approved.

2,152 spousal and fiancé petitions for or on behalf of minors from Muslim countries were approved.

These numbers are extremely incomplete. No country is listed for over
3,000 of the petitions. But Muslim countries still make up 13 of the top
20 destination countries for child marriage trafficking.

The
Senate report also reveals a more disturbing statistic. While Mexico had
the highest number of underage petitions, that’s because it has a high
rate of immigration to the United States. When the report evaluated the
percentage of child marriage petitions among visa petitions in general,
Muslim countries entirely dominated the list with 3% of Jordanian
petitions, 2.8% of Iraqi petitions, 1.6% of Yemeni petitions, 1.4% of
Lebanese petitions and 1.2% of Pakistani spousal petitions involving
minors.

These numbers show how prevalent child
marriage is in Muslim countries and how much of a role our immigration
system plays in importing child sexual abuse under the guise of marriage
into America.

As Muslim immigration to America increases, the rate of child marriage trafficking will rise along with it.

Nalia’s case is unique because there were only two 13-year-olds who
had spousal and fiancé petitions approved by our immigration system.
The other 13-year-old was due to marry a 55-year-old man.

38 more petitions were approved for 14-year-olds. And 269 petitions were approved for 15-year-olds.

The overwhelming majority of minors featured on these child marriage petitions were girls.

But that’s not the most disturbing statistic in the report. While
USCIS limited itself to approving child sex trafficking visa petitions
for children as young as thirteen, no age was too young for the petition
filers.

63 petitions had been filed for thirteen-year-olds,
44 petitions for twelve-year-olds, 60 petitions for eleven-year-olds,
and 71 petitions had been filed for ten-year-olds.

69 petitions had been filed for nine-year-olds.

In a truly disturbing trend, there were more spousal and fiancé
petitions filed for nine-year-olds than thirteen-year-olds. The number
of petitions sometimes increased as the ages of the children dropped.

61 petitions were filed for eight-year-olds, 45 petitions for
seven-year-olds, 31 for six-year-olds, 43 for five-year-olds, and 40
petitions were filed for four-year- olds.

27 petitions were filed for three- year-olds, 37 petitions for two-year-olds, and 17 petitions for one-year-olds.

A total of 545 petitions were filed to sexually abuse girls under the age of thirteen.

378 petitions were filed to marry 10-year-old girls and younger.

While none of these petitions were approved, it’s important to
remember that all of them represent at least one person in the United
States petitioning the government to permit the sexual abuse of a child.

These statistics represent 1,102 cases of attempted child rape in
which the child was either in the United States or abroad. Since these
cases could not be happening without the parents, thousands of adults
were involved in these proposed efforts to use the immigration system to
rape children.

And yet these numbers are the inevitable outcome of our immigration system.

Pakistan has a 21% child marriage rate. In Iraq, it’s 15%. In Jordan,
it’s 8%. In Afghanistan, it’s 57%. In Yemen, it’s more than two-thirds.

These numbers invariably bleed over into immigration from countries where child marriage is normal.

Child marriage is an inescapable part of Islam.

Mohammed married Aisha when she was six years old. While Mohammed had
many wives and sex slaves, his sexual abuse of that young girl is the pillar on which the empire of Islam was built.

In a tribal culture, Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha created a new
familial alliance and expanded his power base. With his daughter’s
sexual abuse, Aisha’s father was able to become the first caliph,
succeeding Mohammed, and he ordered the assembly of the book that we
know today as the Koran.

As long as child marriage remains a
part of Islam, Islamic immigration will continue to be a vector for the
sexual abuse of children in the United States. Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an
investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and
Islamic terrorism.Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272553/2000-muslim-child-marriage-immigration-cases-10-daniel-greenfield Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Are the Mexicans changing their minds about illegal immigration?

About 500 people, including dozens of children, lined up to show their documents to a first line of unarmed security personnel at the Agua Caliente border crossing Tuesday night. Riot police formed a second line to contain any possible disturbance.
Edilberto Hernandez, a former police officer, stood with his wife and four children to cross into Guatemala. After losing his job, he could find only low-paid construction work, and he decided to travel with his whole family to the United States.

So what happens to Edilberto, wife, and kids when they reach Mexico?
According to other news reports and my own conversation with Mexicans in Mexico, there is no appetite to admit more "caravans":

Juan Palomina remarked: “Now look, let’s see if whacko [Mexican President} Lopez Obrador mobilizes the Marines and keeps these idiots from coming to Mexico. Give them enough to eat, at least.”
Some urged the migrants not to be blindly optimistic.
“People of Honduras, all of you who are spinning these grand illusions and getting ready to come on this caravan and in any future others, before you leave your country, please inform yourself about how people who’ve already come on previous caravans are faring in Tijuana,” said Belem Gonzales.
“Mexico is just like your country,” Gonzales added. “There are many problems and needs, and you’re not going to be much better off than you were in Honduras. Please don’t trust these manipulative agitators who are encouraging you to risk everything for nothing.”
Luis Mendez was far more unwelcoming. “We do not want caravans of (emojis of rats). Fight conditions in your own country. You are not welcome here.”
By Tuesday afternoon, a caravan that started with about 500 people grew to about 2,000, according to a representative from the Honduras National Commission of Human Rights, which travels with the caravan.

I cannot say whether these views represent a majority opinion. I have no scientific survey to link to. Nevertheless, I am hearing the same thing from friends and business associates.

After a few phone calls, I've concluded that Mexicans are sympathetic or understand that the violence is driving people out. At the same time, they don't like their country to act as "el camino" the highway, to the U.S.

What will President Lopez-Obrador do? He has to block the caravan or face serious political backlash. Lopez-Obrador is already at war with his countrymen over gas shortages. He does not need another headache!

Upon
returning to their home countries, many activists engage in
anti-Israel demonization including promoting BDS campaigns and
comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany.

On Monday, January 14, NGO Monitor published a new report on the World Council of Churches’ (WCC) Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel(EAPPI). Our research details the funding for and activities of EAPPI, a program that markets itself as focusing on human rights, but in reality emphasizes anti-Israel political advocacy.

NGO Monitor research documents the ways EAPPI misuses tourist visas to enter Israel, where the group has no legal status. Upon returning to their home countries, many activists engage in anti-Israel demonization including promoting BDS campaigns and comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany. EAPPI rhetoric at times draws upon theological rejection of Israel’s existence as the Jewish state, and crosses into overt antisemitism.

Our analysis shows that government donors for EAPPI have included the UK, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Canada, and Japan. In 2017-2019, Norway contributed nearly $2 million, while in 2017-2018 Sweden gave $500,000. Support is also provided by UNICEF and by church organizations.

In response to our exposure of the WCC’s promotion of antisemitism and BDS, the WCC absurdly sought to shift the focus, and falsely deflected by stating that “the definition of antisemitism adopted and promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which is described by the IHRA as a ‘non-legally binding working definition’…WCC does not promote boycotts based on nationality in this or any other context. Nor does WCC promote economic measures against Israel.” WCC published its response in seven languages (including Hebrew!), but none actually addresses the evidence of antisemitism and BDS raised in NGO Monitor’s report.

"Strasbourg -- embodies
the fundamental values ​​of Europe". But if the current trend
continues, these values will be the opposite of those, such as freedom
of expression, on which Europe was founded.

A quarter of the Strasbourg's public school students choose the halal menu in school cafeterias.

In October, from Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights
upheld the shameful conviction of an Austrian woman for what the court
called an "abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam" -- just like that, in
a stroke, accepting and legitimizing Islam's blasphemy laws. It was, as
one news analyst, born in Iran, took note, "the day free speech died in
Europe."

"Strasbourg," according to the city's official website, "embodies
the fundamental values ​​of Europe". But if the current trend
continues, these values will be the opposite of those, such as freedom
of expression, on which Europe was founded.

According
to the official website of Strasbourg, France, the city "embodies the
fundamental values ​​of Europe". But if the current trend continues,
these values will be the opposite of those, such as freedom of
expression, on which Europe was founded. Pictured: The Cathedral of Our
Lady of Strasbourg, one of Europe's most famous Christian sites. (Image
source: Claude Truong-Ngoc / Wikimedia Commons)

"New York, Geneva and Strasbourg are the only cities in the world
which are home to international institutions without being national
capitals", an official page of the French city proudly proclaims.
"The choice of Strasbourg as the European capital following the Second
World War is no accident. The city stands as a shining symbol of
reconciliation between peoples and of the future of Europe".

Last December, however, Strasbourg was shocked by a new terrorist attack. Cherif Chekatt, shouting "Allahu Akbar", murdered five people, before being neutralized
in a two-day manhunt. Among Chekatt's victims were Italian, Polish and
French citizens. Unfortunately, Strasbourg has become one of Europe's
hotbeds of jihadism, an ideology seemingly aimed at destroying Europe's
people, not conciliating with them.

The weekly Valeurs Actuelles called Strasbourg a "French bastion of jihadism". Seven men from Strasbourg, who went to Syria between December 2013 and April 2014, have already been sentenced
to prison terms ranging from six to nine years. The heaviest sentence
was handed to Karim Mohamed-Aggad, the brother of the Bataclan Theater
suicide bomber Foued Mohamed-Aggad. The weekly L'Obs called Strasbourg "land of jihad".

"It's true that we have statistically more 'S-Files' [individuals
labelled by authorities as a threat to national security] here in
Strasbourg and in the Bas-Rhin department than the national average",
the mayor of Strasbourg, Roland Ries, said.
Farhad Khosrokhavar, a sociologist and director of studies at the
School for Advanced Studies in the Social Sciences in Paris, explained:

"Strasbourg is one of those leading cities of what could
be called 'jihadogenic urban areas', such as the suburbs of Paris,
Toulouse, Nice or Lyon in the past... Strasbourg is at the crossroads of
Europe, all you have to do is cross the Rhine to be in Germany and you
are not very far from Switzerland."

There is not only violent terrorism. Pope Francis, in a 2014 address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, said:

"In many quarters we encounter a general impression of
weariness and aging, of a Europe which is now a 'grandmother', no longer
fertile and vibrant. As a result, the great ideas which once inspired
Europe seem to have lost their attraction, only to be replaced by the
bureaucratic technicalities of its institutions."

Islamists dream of replacing this aging Europe, and it they are doing
quite well. The Archbishop of Strasbourg, Luc Ravel, nominated by Pope
Francis in February 2017, declared in July that year:

"Muslim believers know very well that their fertility is
such that today, what do they call it?... the Great Replacement; they
tell you in a very calm, very positive way, 'but anyway, one day all
this will be ours...'"

Strasbourg not only hosts one of the two wings of the European
Parliament. The city is known for one of Europe's most famous Christian
sites, the Cathedral of Our Lady of Strasbourg, which has been called a "Gothic masterpiece". The writer Victor Hugo called it a "gigantic and delicate marvel". Its construction began in 1015. Robert Schuman,
the French statesman and one of the founding fathers of what would
become the European Union, thought about the project of a European Union
meditating inside that cathedral, "the highest church of Christendom".

"France is a privileged target in the plan of global Islamization
conceived of by various states and Islamic organizations", the Algerian
novelist Boualem Sansal recently said.
For years, Strasbourg has been a magnet for political Islam. There is
not only the Great Mosque designed by the Italian architect Paolo
Portoghesi, which, as Le Monde reported, has been financed by Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the last two countries known for financing and spreading radical Islam in Europe. In 2012, then Minister of Interior Manuel Valls attended the inauguration of the Great Mosque, which also received funds from the municipal and regional governments. The Moroccan imam Abdellah Boussof called it "an Alsatian mosque with a European vocation".

"European vocation"?

The city councilors of Strasbourg recently granted another building
permit for a new mega-mosque paid for by Turks and less than two
kilometers from the Great Mosque. The building will be one of the largest mosques in Europe. The groundbreaking ceremony for what is being called the "Great Turkish Mosque", with two 36-meter-tall minarets, was attended by Turkish government officials, including the Deputy Prime Minister. In a new report, Foreign Policy dubbed it "mosque diplomacy". French authorities have facilitated the construction of not one, but two Great Mosques in Strasbourg.

The first Muslim public cemetery in France was also opened in Strasbourg; and a French-Turkish campus is being built in Strasbourg's outskirts, including a high school and a faculty for training imams. Fully funded by Ankara,
it is "the most ambitious project ever for France's Muslim community of
Turkish origins". "The scale and ambition of the project have taken
everyone by surprise", the daily Libérationreported.
The purpose of the high school is apparently to offer a curriculum
based on the Turkish one. Saban Kiper, a local Turkish leader, did not
hide the goal: "The high school will be a pole of excellence and influence for Islam in France and Europe".

Speaking of influence, it is from Strasbourg that the Turkish government has launched the Equality and Justice Party,
which is part of the network wanted by Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan to influence Europe through its Muslim population. Erdogan held
an election rally in Strasbourg in 2015, and the crowd chanted "Allahu Akbar". Strasbourg has been called "the AKP's laboratory", the initials of the Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development Party.

Contravening the famous French principle of secularism, the city of
Strasbourg, led by the socialist mayor Roland Ries, offered four
different menus in the school cafeterias. A quarter of the Strasbourg's public school students choose the halal
Islamic menu. Schools, mosques, cemeteries, political parties:
Strasbourg appears to have been chosen as the French laboratory of the
Islamic secession in the heart of Europe. Political Islam is nurtured by this "separation", as the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut recently noted. "France," he said, "is falling apart and, faced with the strength of numbers, there are no recipes to reduce the fracture".

"Strasbourg," according
to the city's official website, "embodies the fundamental values ​​of
Europe". This is true. Strasbourg has been the cradle of Christian
humanism and the site of the French-German reconciliation after 1945. In
the future, Strasbourg will continue to embody the "values of Europe".
But if the current trend continues, these values will be the opposite of
those, such as freedom of expression, on which Europe was founded.

On October 25, 2018, in Strasbourg, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld the shameful conviction of an Austrian woman, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, for what the ECHR called
an "abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam" -- just like that, in a
stroke, accepting and legitimizing Islam's blasphemy laws. It was, as
one news analyst, born in Iran, took note, "the day free speech died in Europe."

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13543/strasbourg-capital-europe Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter